In this article the author describes the common misconceptions between hypotheses, theories, and laws. The author focuses the main argument on the idea that there is a "lost-in-translation" effect between the scientific language and "real-world" language. Also, the second largest contributor to this confusion is the lack of explanation by educators and improper use on their part as well.
The author explains that the common misunderstanding amongst students is that science begins with an hypothesis: This theory is often just an educated idea with little or no research directly correllated. From there, after data from research shows a positive connection with the hypothesis; an hypothesis can graduate to the level of theory. From there, after considerable testing and research; a theory can become a law. Again i note that everything in the above paragraph is incorrect. (The only reason why i presented it that way is because the author himself misleads you slightly)
Lastly, the author goes into detail to explain how he above interpretation of hypothesis is correct. The author states, "In a broad sense, scientific laws correspond to data-based generalizations, while scientific theories correspond to the scientifically accepted explanation(s) for the generalizations."
Reflection:
After reading this article i find myself in agreement with author whole-heartedly. However, at the same time i feel that the word hypothesis is overuses and therefore is cliched at the high school level. In my own experience i was a victim of this overuse of the word hypothesis (like it would somehow attribute 50% of the grade to use the word). A hypothesis is an idea. Yes, an IDEA. Not an idea about what a student is going to be doing friday night. But some logical prediction of what they expect to happen to a given system where all the independent and dependent variables are controlled and recorded. I personally feel that less emphasis needs to be on the hypothesis and some percentage of that effort needs to be redirected towards understanding a theory vs. a law. I feel one of the greatest examples to give to students is the example of Pythagoras. The Pythagorean theorom is a theory. Not a law, and the reason for this is because you cannot PROVE a law. Even though since the time of Pythagoras the number of times the theory has been approved by data is astronomical, it can never become a law. This explanation shows students that theories are true until proven false (at which point they disintegrate). Laws, however, are things that we as scientists need to accept as truths because of their fundamental importants to a governing system. Though this problem is astronomical to a students scientific ability and development; it is extremely simple to correct early. That way, by having my young physics students accept Newton's "F=ma" as a law; it might just be a little less impossible to swallow Schrodingers's Equation:
In many years.. of course..
Summary:
In this article the author describes the common misconceptions between hypotheses, theories, and laws. The author focuses the main argument on the idea that there is a "lost-in-translation" effect between the scientific language and "real-world" language. Also, the second largest contributor to this confusion is the lack of explanation by educators and improper use on their part as well.The author explains that the common misunderstanding amongst students is that science begins with an hypothesis: This theory is often just an educated idea with little or no research directly correllated. From there, after data from research shows a positive connection with the hypothesis; an hypothesis can graduate to the level of theory. From there, after considerable testing and research; a theory can become a law. Again i note that everything in the above paragraph is incorrect. (The only reason why i presented it that way is because the author himself misleads you slightly)
Lastly, the author goes into detail to explain how he above interpretation of hypothesis is correct. The author states, "In a broad sense, scientific laws correspond to data-based generalizations, while scientific theories correspond to the scientifically accepted explanation(s) for the generalizations."
Reflection:
After reading this article i find myself in agreement with author whole-heartedly. However, at the same time i feel that the word hypothesis is overuses and therefore is cliched at the high school level. In my own experience i was a victim of this overuse of the word hypothesis (like it would somehow attribute 50% of the grade to use the word). A hypothesis is an idea. Yes, an IDEA. Not an idea about what a student is going to be doing friday night. But some logical prediction of what they expect to happen to a given system where all the independent and dependent variables are controlled and recorded. I personally feel that less emphasis needs to be on the hypothesis and some percentage of that effort needs to be redirected towards understanding a theory vs. a law. I feel one of the greatest examples to give to students is the example of Pythagoras. The Pythagorean theorom is a theory. Not a law, and the reason for this is because you cannot PROVE a law. Even though since the time of Pythagoras the number of times the theory has been approved by data is astronomical, it can never become a law. This explanation shows students that theories are true until proven false (at which point they disintegrate). Laws, however, are things that we as scientists need to accept as truths because of their fundamental importants to a governing system. Though this problem is astronomical to a students scientific ability and development; it is extremely simple to correct early. That way, by having my young physics students accept Newton's "F=ma" as a law; it might just be a little less impossible to swallow Schrodingers's Equation:In many years.. of course..
By: David Kenahan
Date: 11/3/08